From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #689 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, August 22 2008 Volume 16 : Number 689 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: interview? [2fs ] Re: interview? ["(0% rh)" ] Re: interview? [Sebastian Hagedorn ] Re: interview? [Sebastian Hagedorn ] Re: bells of rhymney 12" [craigie* ] Re: RH Box Set (yeah yeah I know) ["Jeremy Osner" ] Re: interview? ["Jeremy Osner" ] Re: RH Box Set (yeah yeah I know) ["kevin studyvin" ] Re: interview? [Steve Talkowski ] Re: interview? ["Jeremy Osner" ] Re: Monkeys' Uncle ["Stacked Crooked" ] Everything that happens will happen today ["Jeremy Osner" ] My name is "Eb," and I sometimes call my johnson "Monkeys' Uncle" [2fs ] Re: Any folkies in the audience? ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: Any folkies in the audience? [2fs ] Re: Any folkies in the audience? ["Jeremy Osner" ] Re: interview? ["John B. Jones" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 01:52:07 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: interview? On 8/21/08, (0% rh) wrote: > > > > and maybe distance *doesn't* make the heart grow fonder because, for > the time being, with BSG on hiatus I thought BSG was done, finished, over... Please keep in mind that (a) I have no TV, and (b) therefore my fandom is dependent on DVDs, which of course haven't come out yet, so watch it wit' da spoilers. Point is, I thought what had fnished broadcasting was the end of the series...have I thunk wrong? Also: manatees. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 03:17:32 -0400 From: "(0% rh)" Subject: Re: interview? 2fs says: > I thought BSG was done, finished, over... YOU ARE SATAN. > Please keep in mind that (a) I have no TV, and (b) therefore my fandom is > dependent on DVDs, which of course haven't come out yet, so watch it wit' da > spoilers. > > Point is, I thought what had fnished broadcasting was the end of the > series...have I thunk wrong? nope. because of the writer's strike, everything was behind schedule. they didn't start airing season 4 until april, i believe. at some point, they decided to split the 20 episodes for season 4 into two parts. the airing of the first half of the episodes for season 4 (i.e. episodes 1-10) was finished around mid-june (also, not relatedly, right around the time i lost the will to live (then i remembered that it was all okay: they can stop airing new BSG episodes, but they can't stop MATH.) the second chunk of 10 episodes (the final final 10 episodes) will be aired, IF THERE'S A GOD IT WILL BE EARLY, in 2009. season 4 was, IMO, better than both seasons 2 and 3. it's more focused, which i appreciate. i don't know i can say it's better than season 1, but, i'm kind of old-fashioned. the episode "sine qua non" in season 4 (i believe it was the 8th episode that aired) was, if not the best, definitely one of the three best episodes of the series. > Also: manatees. always. as ever, lauren - -- "people with opinions just go around bothering one another." -- the buddha ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:36:19 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: interview? Hi, - --On 20. August 2008 22:33:49 -0500 2fs wrote: > I don't recall anyone here ever mentioning this - but has anyone here ever > interviewed Robyn in person? yes, I did. > What sort of impressions did you get, if so? He wasn't entirely comfortable about it and he didn't like that I was in that weird Internet fan thing ... that was in 1996, when it wasn't as ubiquitous as today. I suppose even he has come around to it to some degree. You can find a transcript of the interview here: ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:39:08 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: interview? Hi, - --On 21. August 2008 01:29:23 -0400 "(0% rh)" wrote: > p.s. no feg suggestions for my 1-month break before fall semester (not > that i asked) so i've devolved into being a "bones" fan. the plots > are really pretty bad, word! > but i love the relationship between the > characters. I agree. (I meant to write more, but that's not to be right now) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:47:16 +0100 From: craigie* Subject: Re: bells of rhymney 12" I have an Egyptians show from October 85 which has Roger on it... it's the Manchester UMIST show... I can upload the flac files to Mediafire for onward transmission to Dime or wherever you want... just can't do Dime myself at the moment... so, should I? c* On 21/08/2008, ontario moe wrote: > > inspired by that 1985 egyptians show being posted on dime today, i was > doing a little cassette archeology and stumbled across a mysterious > tape, one side of which was labelled "robyn live '84". turns out to be > a hodge-podge of live stuff, all early as the indicated by the presence > of roger jackson. some of the songs are clearly from the september 29, > 1984 hope and anchor show (with the infamous power outage plagued "only > the stones remain") but ... not all of are. > > there's a performance of "the bells of rhymney" which robyn introduces > as being from an single "due out next month" to benefit the striking > miners. that places the show in 1984, as that's when the 12" was > released, but there are no egyptians shows in 1984 which included that > song -- at least as far as the asking tree knows. there are a couple > setlist-free shows though, so one would assume it's from one of those > or from another show we don't know about. > > so, the question is: anybody know when that 12" was released? that > would peg the month, at least, of that performance. > > incidentally, the 9/19/84 show in the asking tree is most likely a dupe > of the 9/29/84 show. i have a tape with the former date but it matches > the setlist and performance of a recording torrented a while ago wit > the later date. interestingly, though, it appears to be a different > source! maybe i'll digitize that tape soon as i get a chance. > > woj > - -- first things first, but not necessarily in that order... I like my girls to be the same as my records - independent, attractively packaged and in black vinyl (if at all possible)... Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc (the motto of the Addams Family: "We gladly feast on those who would subdue us") ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 06:16:31 -0400 From: "Jeremy Osner" Subject: Re: RH Box Set (yeah yeah I know) On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 11:02 PM, m swedene wrote: > ps - got my tickets for the Symphony show in November. Any other NYC Fegs > going? Or our favorite girl from PA coming in for the show? (Raises hand) Our tickets were in the same batch of mail as the box set (which I was rather taken aback to find is not actually a set of boxes.) J - -- READIN 2.0 http://www.readin.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 06:21:33 -0400 From: "Jeremy Osner" Subject: Re: interview? On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 2:47 AM, Carrie Galbraith wrote: > She was human, funny, great to talk to - I've met Michelle but not > had conversations with her but she seems equally easy to talk with, > and a lovely woman. One "L"? - -- READIN 2.0 http://www.readin.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 07:20:24 -0700 From: "kevin studyvin" Subject: Re: RH Box Set (yeah yeah I know) > I had never (or only a couple of times before just now) heard "Tell Me > About Your Drugs". It's nice, I'm picturing that said from any number > of different attitudes. Did not catch all of the lyric but it sounded > like worth listening to over and over again until I could recite it. > Brings back too many memories of endless sitting around with teenage street trash in the 70s doing just that, and pretty much nothing else. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:40:28 -0400 From: Steve Talkowski Subject: Re: interview? Last New Years while in SF, we had dinner with the woman who inspired "One Long Pair of Eyes", among other things. (She's a good friend of my girlfriend) Many interesting stories about Robyn from the late 80's... - -Steve On Aug 21, 2008, at 12:42 AM, Carrie Galbraith wrote: > I had dinner with him once ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:07:13 -0400 From: "Jeremy Osner" Subject: Re: interview? On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 3:36 AM, Sebastian Hagedorn wrote: > > You can find a transcript of the interview here: > > > Interesting that they were planning to have Morris singing in Storefront Hitchcock -- too bad he didn't end up in the movie! Did the book of short stories ever come together? J - -- READIN 2.0 http://www.readin.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:42:37 -0700 From: "Stacked Crooked" Subject: Re: Monkeys' Uncle it's not *often* the case, it's *always* the case. or, produce a counter-example, if you care to. i'm not sure how utopian i'm being, considering my acknowledgement that a revolution is highly unlikely given present balance-of-power circumstances. <> <"Is"? but does that imply "always has been and must be"? (This is really a rephrasing of my previous statement, of course.)> but that's like if i were to say, "the purpose of the anus is to expel faeces," and you were to respond, "but does that imply always has been and must be?" if, at some point in future, there's no longer any faeces to expel, the anus will have become vestigial. if, on the other hand, there's still faeces to expel, and some other modality has taken on the anus' tasks, then we may as well call this new modality "the anus". same with the state. if there's no longer any private property to protect, then the state will have become vestigial. (or, if you disagree, say what you think the state's duties would be in the absence of private property.) but if there're still property relations, but the state's not enforcing them, then some other modality will have to enforce them (if, that is, the property-holders expect them to be respected). so, may as well call this new modality "the state". or call it whatever you want -- but it'll be administering injustice, no matter what you call it. in other words: "meet the new boss". sorry for the confusion. i meant up to and including murder *among the types of aberrant behaviour*. roberta had been doing it. not sure whether or not she still is. if not, and if anybody is interested, do get in touch with bayard. sebastian, at . i presume that dan poppe did so on any number of occasions. by the way, sebastian, is that a *Jewels For Sophia* t-shirt you're wearing at ? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:35:19 -0400 From: "Jeremy Osner" Subject: Everything that happens will happen today Does anybody have comments about this development? http://www.everythingthathappens.com/ I just found out about it, can't wait to listen. J - -- READIN 2.0 http://www.readin.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:51:07 -0700 From: "kevin studyvin" Subject: Re: Everything that happens will happen today Immediate adrenaline rush! prompted mostly by what a landmark their last collaboration was. I note the tour, whoever it involves, isn't stopping in our neighborhood. Can it be that Seattle is no longer the center of the media universe, perish the thought? On 8/21/08, Jeremy Osner wrote: > > Does anybody have comments about this development? > http://www.everythingthathappens.com/ > > I just found out about it, can't wait to listen. > > J > > -- > READIN 2.0 > http://www.readin.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:56:11 -0400 From: "Jeremy Osner" Subject: Re: Everything that happens will happen today On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 2:51 PM, kevin studyvin wrote: > Immediate adrenaline rush! Yep, this. Rolling Stone's reviewer (and the readers who responded thus far) seem to think this is the real deal, too: http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/22668712/review/22677904/everything_that_happens_will_happen_today "The pair rejoin the rock conversation as if they'd never left." "Ultimately, Everything That Happens Will Happen Today is about how music heals even if it can't cure." J - -- READIN 2.0 http://www.readin.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:10:25 -0700 From: "kevin studyvin" Subject: Re: Monkeys' Uncle Not to be totally pedantic but it seems to me you only *have* rights to the degree you're able to enforce them; anything else boils down to what you're *allowed* to do by whoever has the biggest stick. Hence the Chairman's dictum about political power; hence people's tendency to aggregate into mutual-aid societies in order to collectively acquire a bigger stick than any one of them might be able wield individually. Hence what you call your "state," from one perspective at least. On 8/21/08, Stacked Crooked wrote: > > not think that "the presence of a state *always* means our inalienable > rights are being violated" - even if, in fact, that often is the case.> > > it's not *often* the case, it's *always* the case. or, produce a > counter-example, if you care to. np Game Theory: Tinker To Evers To Chance ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:55:39 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: My name is "Eb," and I sometimes call my johnson "Monkeys' Uncle" On 8/21/08, Stacked Crooked wrote: > > not think that "the presence of a state *always* means our inalienable > rights are being violated" - even if, in fact, that often is the case.> > > > it's not *often* the case, it's *always* the case. or, produce a > counter-example, if you care to. Well, in order for this to be a meaningful criticism, it would have to be possible for any collective entity, however constituted for whatever ends, to *always* be able to allow *everyone*'s inalienable rights to be left inviolate. In other words, it would have to be possible that everyone be able to exercise their rights w/o anyone else's rights being infringed. In fact, though, people's rights inevitably come into conflict with one another. You might argue an inalienable right to practice your religion; I might argue my inalienable right to privacy...but your religious beliefs might require you to burst into people's homes and photograph them in the shower. An absurd example - but the point is, rights conflict. A state will inevitably, in choosing to maintain one set of rights, violate some other sets of rights - in a particular situation. Society is always trying to negotiate conflicting interests or rights - your right to assemble and march down the street, my right to sleep quietly without all these damned marchers disturbing my peace, etc. In so doing, yes, it inevitably steps on someone's rights. Even beyond that technical argument, I disagree that states inevitably & always defend private property. "Private property" is a historical concept, and some sort of state predates that concept. Some sort of governmental organization exists or has existed in societies that don't seem to hold the concept of private property. Hell - states have *formed* in order (so they say) to defend *against* property rights (even if they were dismal failures in most respects). Plus, whose private property something is is often disputed - and there's a whole area of law, and a legal procedure, which presumes to settle such disputes...which is to say, in doing so, the state enforces one party's "property rights" while denying another's. And it's not always the case that the state uses the concept of eminent domain to benefit the more powerful party. Some years ago, the city of Milwaukee seized a parcel of land via eminent domain from a large, multi-state property development company, on grounds that they'd held the land for years w/o developing it (the city wanted it developed; the company was holding it as speculation, essentially). The city then sold the land in smaller parcels to several different parties, many if not all of whom were smaller, local entities. The original owner, being larger and more powerful, possessed of far more capital, should by your definition be whom the state defended if it defaults to protecting property rights...but in this instance, it was smaller entities - with less capital, less property, and thereby less power - that the state defended. A host of other exceptions, not just literally in terms of property but in terms of the state defending those of reduced social capital over against those of enormous social capital, are easy enough to spot, exceptions to a generality though they may be. But their existence is enough to deny the notion that the state *inevitably and only* defends private property. There is also (and I'm murky on this, because it's only something I remember from college in a pre-law class I took) established precedent to the effect that, a landowner leaving land derelict or unused, and the public generally maintaining, say, a path across this land, that landowner can be held to have forfeited its property rights to that path. (There must be a lawyer in the house who can straighten out my dim memory here - point is, while I would never argue that the state - particularly in current social conditions - - tends to embiggen the powerful, I would argue that that's not only or ever the case. That flawed though it may be, the US mode of government does allow to its people, even those of no property whatsoever, more rights than they might have possessed under other, earlier regimes - even if it also denies those people other rights that other regimes might have defended - suggests that states can and do defend not only the powerful but also the powerless. I'm taking it as read that property accrues from capital, that other modes of power can be called "capital" by analogy (such as the social capital accruing the Harvard MBA vs. the guy driving a rusted pickup who dropped out of 8th grade), and that all those forms of capital are so called *because* they are forms of power - and so what you're really saying is that states seize and accrue power to themselves and, by defending others with power, become more powerful themselves. > > <"Is"? but does that imply "always has been and must be"? (This is really a > rephrasing of my previous statement, of course.)> > > > but that's like if i were to say, "the purpose of the anus is to expel > faeces," and you were to respond, "but does that imply always has been and > must be?" That's a shitty analogy. "Purpose" in terms of physical objects can be read from their form, if not always exactly, and certainly, it can be clear what physical objects *cannot* do. A four-foot thick lead wall *will not* ever make a good showerhead. Philosophical concepts are nowhere near so well defined. I will acknowledge that if "state" is defined as a collective entity that, whatever else it does, arrogates power to itself to some end or other, *then* it's true that "the state" will always violate *someone's* rights...but the only *necessary* way in which it do so is that technical sense I defined above (i.e., rights inevitably conflict). Arguably, better to have a state *define* whose rights prevail than be absent and let the parties merely fight it out - meaning the more powerful or ruthless always wins, regardless of whether society at large would better benefit from the other party's prevailing. > > > same with the state. if there's no longer any private property to protect, > then the state will have become vestigial. (or, if you disagree, say what > you think the state's duties would be in the absence of private property.) I believe I did that in my previous e-mail. But let's just refer as an example to the Bill of Rights, many of which do not depend (philosophically) on private property at all. "Freedom of speech" does not require that either party own property, nor does it say that the party with greater social capital must prevail or can shut down those of lesser social capital (even if that does happen in reality, it isn't intrinsic in the statement of "freedom of speech"). but if there're still property relations, but the state's not enforcing > them, then some other modality will have to enforce them (if, that is, the > property-holders expect them to be respected). so, may as well call this > new modality "the state". or call it whatever you want -- but it'll be > administering injustice, no matter what you call it. > > in other words: "meet the new boss". I smell something circular here...so long as anyone anywhere's defending property rights,* it's "the state"...and therefore, by definition, "the state" is that which defends property rights. * By the way: "defending property rights" against what? Could be against other property rights; could be against other rights entirely...but in either case, it's easy to find examples of limits being set on property rightsholders in defense of those w/o property or with other property. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:17:49 -0700 From: "kevin studyvin" Subject: Re: My name is "Eb," and I sometimes call my johnson "Monkeys' Uncle" > There is also (and I'm murky on this, because it's only something I > remember > from college in a pre-law class I took) established precedent to the effect > that, a landowner leaving land derelict or unused, and the public generally > maintaining, say, a path across this land, that landowner can be held to > have forfeited its property rights to that path. Can't locate specifics but memory tells me something of the sort happened to Carole King somewhere back in the mists of time - tried to fence off part of a ranch, but there was a pathway across part of it that people had been using since forever and she had to take down the fence. Something of the sort. Anybody? np: Bonzo Dog Band, "King Of Scurf" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:19:22 +1200 From: grutness@slingshot.co.nz Subject: major disk crash Dear all - I have just suffered a major computer disk crash which, in deference to Murphy's law, happened while I was backing everything up onto my peripheral hard drive. Because of that not only do I not have access to any files that I have written or been sent recently, my most recent backups are also fried. As such, my most recent backup is now the set of CD-Rs I burned in *April* :(( If any of you have sent me any mail in the last four months which you thinkI might still need or are waiting for a reply from, please if possible could you send me a copy? Many thanks, James - -- James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- =-.-=-.-=-.- You talk to me as if from a distance .-=-.-=-.-=-. -=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time .-=- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:21:21 -0700 From: "kevin studyvin" Subject: Re: My name is "Eb," and I sometimes call my johnson "Monkeys' Uncle" > I believe I did that in my previous e-mail. But let's just refer as an > example to the Bill of Rights, many of which do not depend > (philosophically) > on private property at all. "Freedom of speech" does not require that > either > party own property, nor does it say that the party with greater social > capital must prevail or can shut down those of lesser social capital That is the way it normally works, of course... (even if that does happen in reality, it isn't intrinsic in the statement of > "freedom of speech"). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:40:44 -0400 From: "Jeremy Osner" Subject: Any folkies in the audience? I could use your help identifying a tune: http://readin.com/blog/?id=1399 Thanks J - -- READIN 2.0 http://www.readin.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:24:50 -0700 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Any folkies in the audience? Jeremy Osner wrote: > I could use your help identifying a tune: http://readin.com/blog/?id=1399 Haven't got a bastard clue, sorry. You could ask on fiddle hangout: . Or if you get nothing there, I could ask my friend Erynn, who just took first place at Clifftop in fiddling. Stewart (more of a banjo type) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:00:05 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Any folkies in the audience? On 8/21/08, Jeremy Osner wrote: > > I could use your help identifying a tune: http://readin.com/blog/?id=1399 I'm pretty sure that's "When the Maidens Slop the Pigs" or, more technically, the tune is known as Lllannfoiwohofaldlgusdlkjlkgyn #5. The lyrics are an interesting variation on the common "pig-slopping leading to deceptive farting" motif. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:26:15 -0400 From: "Jeremy Osner" Subject: Re: Any folkies in the audience? Thanks for the suggestion, Stewart -- my question was answered over there in short order; the song is a poorly remembered "Bonaparte Crossing the Rhine". J On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Stewart C. Russell wrote: > Jeremy Osner wrote: >> I could use your help identifying a tune: http://readin.com/blog/?id=1399 > > Haven't got a bastard clue, sorry. You could ask on fiddle hangout: > . Or if you get nothing there, I could > ask my friend Erynn, who just took first place at Clifftop in fiddling. > > Stewart > (more of a banjo type) > - -- READIN 2.0 http://www.readin.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:36:21 -0700 From: "John B. Jones" Subject: Re: interview? Jeff said: >I don't recall anyone here ever mentioning this - but has anyone here ever > interviewed Robyn in person? What sort of impressions did you get, if so? I interviewed Robyn in the fall of 2003. It contained one of my worst interviewing moments ever. I believe that Luxor had just come out, and so I lobbed a softball of a question to Robyn: "The songs on this album seem pretty personal." Robyn shot back, "All my songs are personal." I heard some acid in his tone. *DEAD AIR* *DEAD AIR* *MORE DEAD AIR* I froze up. I didn't know how to respond. I felt like I had been shot down. At this point I'd probably done 30 in-studios for my college station, but never one with my all-time musical hero. Luckily Scott McCaughey (who had accompanied Robyn down to the studio) chimed in with a funny comment and deftly deflected the tension. They went on to kind of take over the interview after that, and I was content to let them. It all happened so fast, and I was so bummed. I think Robyn could tell that things didn't go well for me, because he came into the air room after it was over and asked if he could put me on the guest list for the show that night. "I already bought my tickets, but thanks anyway" was pretty close to how I responded. I'll be honest, the experience soured me on Robyn for a time, probably for a couple of years. Listening to his albums just wasn't the same. I would play that moment over and over in my head, like Marsha getting hit in the nose by the football over and over again in that Brady Bunch episode. Now that I have some distance from the event, I can own up to my shit -- I think I was pretty manic that day (wouldn't YOU be?) and it probably rubbed him the wrong way. He mentioned later that he wasn't really out to promote Luxor, so he probably didn't really want to field questions about it. If I were to judge Robyn based on that one in-studio, I'd say he was a prick with a giant ego. But I've chatted with him after shows here and there, and know that he makes an effort to talk to fans after shows and tolerate all of our weird geeky fanboy and fangirl ways. Occasionally he's even been quite cordial. I hope I get another opportunity to interview him. I'm at a bigger station now, KBOO here in Portland OR. Hey, as long as you've read this far, I'll let you know that I'm excited about doing a 2 and 1/2 hour retrospective on Soft Boys and Robyn for our fall pledge drive. It'll air October 6th. 150 minutes is about 35 songs, so my plan is to play one song from each album in chronological order, including albums like Portland Arms and Live Death and stuff like that. I haven't timed it out or anything, but I'm hoping to be able to throw some rarities and a few verbals in between. If you have ideas or requests, or content, please drop me a line. Thanks for reading! JBJ On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 8:33 PM, 2fs wrote: > I don't recall anyone here ever mentioning this - but has anyone here ever > interviewed Robyn in person? What sort of impressions did you get, if so? > > -- > > ...Jeff Norman > > The Architectural Dance Society > http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #689 ********************************